Apple is hoping a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling curbing the power of federal judges to issue nationwide orders will help the technology giant win an appeal in a lawsuit requiring it to revamp its App Store, reports Reuters.
In a bizarre (well, to me at least) court filing, Apple told the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the Supreme Court’s June order in a case involving birthright citizenship bolsters the iPhone maker’s arguments in its ongoing battle with Fortnite game developer Epic Games. The Supreme Court limited when judges can issue so-called universal injunctions that apply broadly, and not just to the parties in a lawsuit, notes Reuters.
Last month Apple urged the Ninth Circuit Court to prohibit a district court’s “unduly punitive” mandate blocking it from charging any commission on iPhone app purchases made outside its own payment system, reports Law360 (a subscription is required to read the entire article).
The tech giant is arguing the Epic Games injunction redux goes far beyond the original order and attacks conduct that’s not illegal under California law. Apple wants the Ninth Circle to assign the case to a different judge if it’s sent back to the district court.
Some background
In April US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers sided with Fortnite developer Epic Games over its allegation that Apple failed to comply with an order she issued in 2021 after finding the company engaged in anticompetitive conduct in violation of California law.
Gonzalez Rogers also referred the case to federal prosecutors to investigate whether Apple committed criminal contempt of court for flouting her 2021 ruling. Naturally, Apple disagreed with this argument: The district court’s new prohibition against any commission on sales facilitated by Apple’s own platform has no basis in the original injunction, is fundamentally unfair, violates the UCL, and amounts to a taking in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the court’s permanent imposition of a royalty of zero for a huge category of transactions can only be understood as a punishment. But civil contempt may not be used to punish. The new injunction’s amped-up provisions barring Apple’s ability to regulate steering are similarly flawed.
And in a statement to Law360, an Apple spokesperson said: Apple has spent decades earning users’ trust in the security, privacy, and innovative technology that the App Store provides, and we’re deeply concerned that this injunction now prevents Apple from continuing to protect our users in important ways. (…) We’re appealing this order to ensure that the App Store remains an incredible opportunity for developers and a safe and trusted experience for everyone.
I hope you’ll help support Apple World Today by becoming a patron. All our income is from Patreon support and sponsored posts. Patreon pricing ranges from $2 to $10.
